Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

global-change-biology

Use when targeting Global Change Biology or deciding whether a biology/ecology manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the global-change-driver framing and biological-evidence bar, scale and mechanism expectations, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md7.3 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Global Change Biology (global-change-biology)

Journal positioning

Global Change Biology is the Wiley journal for the biological and ecological responses of the living world to global change — climate warming, elevated CO2, altered precipitation, nitrogen deposition, land-use and land-cover change, and their interactions. Its defining expectation is a clear global-change driver coupled to rigorous biological evidence: a study that links an explicit global-change forcing to a biological or ecological response, with mechanism or consequence resolved from the molecular to the ecosystem scale. A local ecology, physiology, or biogeochemistry study with no global-change driver or framing is a weak fit, however well executed. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Global Change Biology submission guidance.

When to trigger

  • The author names Global Change Biology and wants a fit/framing check for a global-change ecology or biology paper.
  • A local ecological, physiological, or soil/biogeochemical study must be re-framed around an explicit global-change driver and its biological consequences.
  • The author is choosing between Global Change Biology, a general ecology journal, and an earth-system or biogeochemistry venue.
  • The author needs this journal's global-change-framing requirement and biological-evidence bar.

Scope & topic fit

  • Responses of organisms, populations, communities, and ecosystems to climate change, elevated CO2, warming, drought, and shifting disturbance regimes.
  • Terrestrial, freshwater, and marine carbon, nutrient, and greenhouse-gas cycling when the biological response to a global-change driver is central.
  • Land-use and land-cover change, nitrogen deposition, and their interactions with climate on biodiversity, productivity, and biogeochemistry.
  • Phenology, range shifts, species interactions, and evolutionary/acclimation responses under global-change forcing.
  • Mechanistic, manipulative experiments (warming, FACE, N-addition), long-term observations, syntheses, and process-based or data-driven modeling of global-change responses.
  • Feedbacks between the biosphere and the climate system, including mitigation/adaptation relevance grounded in biological evidence.

Method & evidence bar

  • A global-change driver must be explicit and causally connected to the biological response — not a study where climate is mentioned only in the framing sentences.
  • Manipulative experiments need appropriate replication, realistic treatment levels, and controls; pseudoreplication and unrealistic forcing levels are common failings.
  • Observational and gradient studies must address confounding, space-for-time assumptions, and the limits of attribution to the global-change driver.
  • Models must be evaluated against data with skill metrics and uncertainty; scenario and parameter choices must be justified and sensitivity explored.
  • Syntheses and meta-analyses need a transparent, reproducible search, effect-size handling, and heterogeneity/bias assessment.
  • Conclusions about consequences must match the scale of evidence — extrapolation from one site or one season to ecosystem- or global-scale claims must be justified.

Structure & house style

  • Standard research-article structure; the journal also publishes reviews, syntheses, and shorter formats — re-check current article types and length on the live guide.
  • The introduction must foreground the global-change driver, the biological question, and the knowledge gap, framing the work for a broad global-change readership.
  • Figures should be quantitative and mechanism- or consequence-oriented (response curves, treatment contrasts, maps with uncertainty), not purely descriptive site characterizations.
  • Methods, data, and code must support reproducibility; follow the journal's data-availability expectations and deposit data/code where required.

Official-submission checklist

  • Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Wiley anchors, then cite the current Global Change Biology page you checked.
  • Search the live site for "Global Change Biology author guidelines" and follow the current Wiley version.
  • Re-check article types (research, review, synthesis, opinion), length, and abstract expectations.
  • Confirm the data- and code-availability policy and any repository/DOI deposition requirement.
  • For meta-analyses, re-check whether a reporting standard and data-table deposition are expected.
  • Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure, and open-access terms.
  • If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

  • An explicit global-change driver is causally linked to the biological/ecological response.
  • Experiments have adequate replication, realistic treatments, and proper controls (no pseudoreplication).
  • Observational/gradient inferences address confounding and attribution limits.
  • Models are benchmarked with skill metrics and uncertainty; scenarios are justified.
  • Conclusions are scaled to the evidence, with extrapolation explicitly justified.
  • Data/code availability meets the journal's policy.

Common desk-reject triggers

  • A local ecology/physiology study with global change only in the framing, not in the design.
  • Pseudoreplicated or unrealistically forced manipulative experiments.
  • Space-for-time or gradient inference with unaddressed confounding presented as global-change attribution.
  • Model results with no benchmarking, uncertainty, or justified scenarios.
  • Site- or season-limited results extrapolated to ecosystem/global conclusions without justification.
  • Scope mismatch: pure earth-system/geophysical or pure methods work with no biological response.

Re-routing decision

  • Food-systems significance dominant over the biology → nature-food.
  • Pollutant/contaminant ecological impact is the core → environmental-pollution.
  • Authoritative invited synthesis of the field → annual-review-of-environment-and-resources.
  • Broad sustainability/solutions framing → nature-sustainability.
  • General ecology without a global-change driver → a general ecology journal (e.g., ecology / journal-of-ecology).

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Global Change Biology
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest global-change-biology topics>
[Global-change driver] <the explicit forcing and the biological response it drives>
[Method/evidence] <does replication/attribution/benchmarking clear the biological-evidence bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / data-code policy / meta-analysis standard / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

See all skills by brycewang-stanford

Report a problem with this skill